Monthly Archives: August 2014

We’re coming up on back-to-school season, which means the start of flu season so the biggest question I’m hearing at the office is “do I need the flu shot?” It’s a great question, and I can’t answer it for you specifically, but I can give you some facts about the flu vaccine, the FluMist® nasal spray and also some natural alternatives to the flu shot so that you can make the best decision possible for you. Just make sure you read down to the part about dog proteins (eek!!!)

What is the Flu Vaccine? The Basics

The flu vaccine or nasal mist is typically tiny doses of the actual flu virus that has been weakened or “killed,” depending on the vaccine type, so that your immune system can respond without you actually having to get the flu. There are several forms from several manufacturers. These are mostly “trivalent” which means there are three different strains of flu, and “quatrivalent” meaning four strains. According to the CDC the 2014-2015 trivalent vaccine will have:

an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus

an A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2)-like virus

a B/Massachusetts/2/2012-like virus.

The quadrivalent form will add B virus (B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus). There are three broad categories of Influenza vaccines, depending on the way they are produced. Each form has it’s own strengths and weaknesses. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website, these types are:

IIV or Inactivated Influenza Vaccine:

As the name suggests, these vaccinations contain an inactivated form of the virus so they can not give you influenza. These are all injected only. The trivalent form has been used clinically before, but this is the first year for the quadrivalent form, so there isn’t as much safety data on that one. This does contain egg ingredients so watch for egg allergies and it is not safe for infants under 6 months. This is the oldest type of influenza vaccine and so has the most safety and clinical data.

RIV or Recombinant Influenza Vaccine:

This vaccine is extremely new technology and has not been on the market until this flu season. It does not use eggs anywhere in it’s production and so is safe for those with egg allergy. Uniquely, it also does not use the actual influenza virus, but is rather a lab-altered insect virus called baculovirus. Because this is new technology it has only been approved for those between the ages of 18 to 49 years old and not enough data is available to pregnant women, nursing mothers, children or adults over 50 years of age. This new technology is marketed as Flublok®

Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccine or LAIV:

This is administered as a nasal mist, called FluMist® and is actually the live virus, that has been weakened so that it is extremely unlikely to cause the flu, but can generate a strong immune response. Because this actually contains live virus is shouldn’t be given to anyone with family members who are immune-supressed or immune deficient, or people with medical conditions that make them more at risk for serious complications of the flu. This form also isn’t suitable for pregnant women. This is approved for people over the age of 2 and under the age of 50. The most common side effect of this vaccine is runny or congested nose, and in kiddos age 2 through 6 years old there can be a fever after the vaccine. This also shouldn’t be given to children or adolescents who are taking aspirin or other salicylates because there is a risk of a condition called Reyes Syndrome.

Any vaccine, whether it’s delivered as an injection or not, can cause symptoms or adverse events. There is a hotline to report any adverse events to the appropriately named Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Service (VAERS) 1-800-822-7967or you can visit their website to report an event. There is also a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) you can get more information at 1-800-338-2382.

What is the Success Rate of the Flu Vaccine?

First off, every year the vaccine is different so we don’t know for the 2014 flu shot, but we can get a ballpark idea from previous years vaccines. An important fact to remember is that the flu vaccine only protects from the actual influenza virus (and only if they get the right strains in the shot), but there are many other viruses that can create “influenza-like-illnesses” that it’s still entirely possible to get something that looks and feels like the flu, it just isn’t. There are two factors that determine how well the flu shot works every year and one of them is how well the vaccine matches the actual strains that people get. The other is how healthy you are as a whole person (we’ll talk about that in just a minute). The CDC says:

“At least two factors play an important role in determining the likelihood that flu vaccine will protect a person from flu illness: 1) characteristics of the person being vaccinated (such as their age and health), and 2) the similarity or “match” between the flu viruses the flu vaccine is designed to protect against and the flu viruses spreading in the community.”

Effectiveness is difficult to determine from the research, or at least difficult to decode if you’re not a researcher or a statistician. In terms of general effectiveness the best study I found was published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2012. This study says that the flu shot is 59% effective in preventing the flu, which sounds amazing. Except that when you do the math, it’s less amazing and more just meh. In a normal population about 2.7 out of every 100 people will get the flu in any given year. This study shows that if those 100 people get vaccinated then only 1.2 out of those 100 people will get the flu (and going from 2.7% to 1.2% is 59% risk reduction). So… It’s not actually tricky math, it’s just that 59% sounds WAY better than saving 1.5 people out of every 100 people vaccinated from the flu. That just sounds mediocre at best.

This study published by Vanderbilt University Medical Center about the 2010 – 2011 flu season inspected adults who were hospitalized for influenza-like illness. All of those people were tested to see if it was actually the flu, or another virus and also tested to see if they had evidence of the flu shot. Out of 169 cases admitted to the hospital who had their vaccine status confirmed there were 17 actual flu cases, the other 152 cases were other viruses with the same symptoms. Of the 17 flu cases 11 were not vaccinated and 6 were vaccinated, making the flu shot 71% effective at preventing hospitalizations. This is because in the vaccinated group there were less than half the number of cases than in the non-vaccinated group (but notably still a fair number of cases). It seems reasonable to point out that this study was funded by the Center for Disease Control.

Obviously the flu shot reduces risk, but doesn’t prevent the flu entirely and doesn’t even prevent hospitalization entirely. Of course, nothing works 100% of the time, but given the amount of hype there is every year about flu shots I would love for this information to be more exciting than lukewarm.

Are there Allergy Risks with the Various Types of Flu Shot or FluMist® Nasal Spray?

Yes. Vaccines in general contain many ingredients. The most up to date list I was able to find on the CDC website was for the 2013 flu shot and included a number of potentially allergenic ingredients including:

In addition to distressing chemical ingredients including thimersol (mercury), aluminum, phenol and MSG, your flu vaccine may also contain animal ingredients from egg, pork or more alarmingly from dog.

What Is the Truth About Mercury and Chemicals in the Flu Shot?

In 2001 the use of the mercury-based preservative thimersol was discouraged from childhood vaccines because generally injecting mercury into children seems a bad idea, but it can still be used in multi-dose vials of the influenza vaccine. For the 2014-2015 influenza vaccine there are single-dose vials available that are thimersol free and also the FluMist nasal spray is thimersol free. Thimersol is highly controversial and a more complete history of it’s use, safety and recent prohibition can be found here. According to the CDC vaccines also often contain a number of somewhat alarming ingredients including aluminum, phenol, antibiotics, egg protein, MSG and formaldehyde in small amounts. Honestly, I’m still stuck at dog protein, but given that I’m allergic to MSG and no huge fan of aluminum or formaldehyde it’s possible that those should be bothering me more right now. But dog proteins. Really?!?

Can the Flu shot protect me from heart attack?

Surprisingly, it can. People with severe heart disease are more at risk of dying from influenza or its severe complications including pneumonia, respiratory failure and heart attack. According to the Mayo Clinic, getting the flu shot can help to prevent flu, which may help you to prevent a heart attack as well. Also, even if you do get the flu after having the vaccination, you are more likely to have a milder flu with less severe complications. A huge research study confirmed this, showing that the risk of major cardiac events in the unvaccinated high-risk population was 4.7% vs 2.9% in the vaccinated group. Essentially in this population being vaccinated against the flu cuts the risk of having a major cardiac event almost in half because major cardiac events can be triggered by the flu virus. Not having a heart attack is actually a really big deal and a great reason to get a flu shot.

Is the Flu Shot a Good Idea for Pregnant Women?

Pregnancy is certainly a riskier time to get the flu. Pregnant women are more likely to develop more severe symptoms if they do get the flu, and according to the CDC high fevers caused by the flu can actually lead to birth defects in the unborn child. Also getting a flu shot during pregnancy gives both the mother and the fetus protection against the flu, and the fetus can retain that protection for up to 6 months after birth. Since the flu can be fatal for newborns this may be a compelling reason for pregnant women to consider the vaccination in spite of the additional ingredients.

Is There a Natural Alternative to the Flu Shot?

There is a homeopathic preparation of influenza that has been used historically. Public records of the homeopathic influenzinum as a preventative were not kept, but there is historical information for other homeopathic vaccinations. According to an article by homeopath Patty Smith-Verspoor, in one case using homeopathic meningitis virus for 18,640 children during an outbreak only 4 cases of actual infection were reported (0.0002%). Also in the flu epidemic of 1818-1819 homeopathic MDs who treated using this form of medicine lost less than 1% of their patients, while the death rate for conventional medicine was 30%. Research evidence isn’t present for flu prevention, but a study published in 2013 gives evidence that homeopathic flu virus does induce cellular and immunological changes to cells in a lab. No matter the lack of modern research, the historic use is compelling. The homeopathic influenzinum may be a useful tool in flu prevention

So Do I Need The Flu Shot?

The accurate answer is that this is a question only you and your doctor can answer accurately. Clearly the benefits outweigh the risks if you are at risk for serious heart disease because not having a heart attack can be life-saving. Everything else is such a personal decision and depends so much on your medical history, your risk factors and your overall health as well as what risk you feel the additives will be to your body (if any). The best answer is get all the information you can and have a serious, informed talk with your physician about it. Learn everything you can and ask your physician, who knows your health history, “do I need the flu shot?”.

What Else Can I do to Protect Myself From the Flu?

Helping the health of your body as a whole not only helps protect you from the flu, but also makes the flu shot more effective if you do decide to get it. This means eating balanced meals regularly with fruits and veggies and lean proteins and good fats and not as much starch or sugar as you might typically get. It also means getting rest, drinking water, exercising and generally being a healthy human. I know, it’s not as glamorous as dog protein, but it’s also not made of DOG. Also good flu season habits are covering coughs, washing your hands often and especially before eating and trying to avoid sick people. Some natural supplements that can help to boost your protection against viruses specifically are colostrum and elderberry syrup.

Everyone knows that salt restricted diets are helpful for blood pressure, right? Right? As is often the case, the things that “everyone knows” should always be open to more scrutiny. Frankly if it were that easy, why would we not have fixed the blood pressure problem? There is no doubt that there is a link between salt and blood pressure, but the research is only beginning to bring clarity. Ironically my first exposure to these ideas came from the most unlikely place, which is Dr. David A McCarron, MD, FACP – who is a totally main-stream conventional MD. A lecture from Dr. McCarron in Houston brought to light the large body or research that shows that salt moderation is helpful, but salt restriction – especially to the newly recommended 1500 mg per day for high risk individuals – can be harmful. Let’s talk about why:

There is no doubt that high salt intake increases blood pressure – anyone who has had a big night in Texas with salty corn chips, salty salsa and salt-rimmed margaritas can tell you that. The next day after salt-fest your body is puffy, your hands are tight and your blood pressure is higher because your body holds on to a lot more fluid to help dilute all that salt. This is totally natural and you will never hear me make the argument that salt and blood pressure aren’t intimately linked up, but the solution isn’t as simple as taking all the salt out of your diet.

Salt is vital to every cell and tissue in your body simply because sodium is one of the major ions in your blood stream and is used to transport other things across cell membranes, to help information travel through the body and generally in every step of the processes necessary for life. Because it’s so vital, salt levels in your blood stream are tightly regulated because if they change too much your body will die. The primary way you adjust to changing salt intake is through the hormone aldosterone, which rises when sodium levels in your blood stream get too low. When aldosterone rises your body conserves sodium and excretes potassium through your kidneys and urine. So aldosterone causes an increase in blood sodium, which causes an increase in blood pressure. Aldosterone is also produced by your body if your blood pressure gets too low, so even if you have a salt-restricted diet you can end up with higher sodium and higher blood pressure. This is part of the more complicated Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone system that helps regulate blood pressure in humans, but obviously there is a strong link between salt and blood pressure.

What I see from this is that there is a sweet spot – a place where there is the right amount of salt. Not too much, not too little. Let’s call it the Goldilocks spot for salt intake. One huge research study (actually a study of other studies, called a meta-analysis) done by the Cochrane Collaboration shows that long-term moderate salt diets can be highly beneficial to blood pressure for both genders and in all ethnic groups studied. They estimate the Goldilocks spot to be about 3 g (or 3,000 mg) per day. This is higher than the currently accepted medical suggestion of 1,500 mg – 2,300 mg per day.

Medically we also use this same pathway to try to artificially control blood pressure. Two of the main classes of drugs that are used to lower blood pressure are designed to inhibit the release of aldosterone. One class are ACE inhibitors, including captopril, enalapril, lisinopril and ramipril. The other class is called Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, or ARBs and these include losartan, valsartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, and olmesartan. This may mean a severely salt restricted diet could actually make some of the medications you may be taking for blood pressure less effective.

To add ammunition to this argument, the second paper in a series of long-term research about dietary salt intake and risk of death from major cardiovascular events was published. This paper, called the PURE paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and it supports the idea that too high and too low sodium intake are both a problem. This study shows that the group of people with the highest sodium excretion (meaning also the highest intake) at 7 g per day have a 15% increased risk of death from cardiovascular events as compared to average. It also showed that the lowest sodium intake group, below 3 g per day (that’s the Goldilocks spot from the Cochrane study) had a 27% greater risk for death from cardiovascular events. So in this study the lowest salt intake group is at significantly greater risk of dying from heart disease than the highest salt intake group. This means that if you follow the current medical guidelines of 1.5-2.3 grams of salt per day you are actually at higher risk than if you don’t restrict salt at all and have a high-salt diet. Eek!

In this study the lowest salt intake group is more likely to die from heart disease than the highest salt intake group, and following the current medical recommendations would put you solidly into the lowest salt intake (and highest risk) group. This means too little salt as well as too much salt is detrimental to blood pressure control.

As with everything else, it seems the best course of action lies in moderation. Dr. McCarron’s view on the problem was that restricting salt intake can be as harmful as overdoing salt intake, so maintaining a “normal” intake is best. In this, I have to admit, I agree!

Anyone who knows me can tell you I love trees. LOVE trees. So it’s no surprise that I’m advocating tree-hugging, but I’m not actually talking about it here for the reasons I usually do (sanity check, beauty, air purity, etc…). I’m actually talking about your health. As it turns out, the health benefits of trees are not all mental and emotional. Not that those aren’t important, but there tends to be some eye-rolling when doctors talk about “connecting with nature” and “getting out into the woods to relax.” I get it.

A recent study published in the journal Environmental Pollution showed that trees (just trees!!) prevented 850 human deaths, averted $6.8 billion dollars in health care costs, and helped prevent 670,000 cases of acute respiratory symptoms in 2010 alone. That is all because of trees and all in just one year. But again – the respiratory part, we all knew about because trees are the natural filters for our air and trees and plants generally are our major natural air filters. This great pictograph shows precisely how much air pollution is removed by trees in your area:

More remarkably, there is a link between trees and your heart health. A study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine in 2013 took advantage of a natural crisis in the tree population to show how the number of trees affects human health. Between 1990 and 2007 the Emerald Ash Borer (a type of insect) killed hundreds of millions of Ash trees in the U.S. and this study looked at trends in heart disease and also lung disease during that time. The results showed a clear increase in heart disease and death from cardiac causes in areas that were losing trees – 15,080 heart-related deaths because of tree loss specifically. In those areas there were also an additional 6113 deaths from lung disease. This suggests that the link between trees and heart disease may even be stronger than the link between trees and lung disease.

Trees also help reduce stress levels, increase wound healing speed and generally make life more livable. In fact, Richard Louv proposed a series of problems, especially behavioral problems in children stemming from “Nature Deficit Disorder.” I don’t know about you, but for my heart, my stress levels and my overall happiness I’m going to do everything I can to spend more time with trees.

Breast cancer is a big deal, and if you have it then you want to do everything to make sure the treatments you’re taking are actually working, so here is a simple, effective way to prevent tamoxifen resistance – please tell every woman you know! Nobody knows if this will prevent resistance 100%, but according to this study published in the journal Cancer Research, not adding this one simple step can make the drug ineffective, and it’s something that seems harmless. Nobody would ever think this would make such a big difference for breast cancer, but it does so spread the word to your girlfriends – because the killer might be sleeping with your lights on, even a small amount of light under a doorway might cause tamoxifen resistance.

If you know ANY woman with Breast cancer who is using Tamoxifen as a treatment make sure she knows this one simple step. You can help to save her from Tamoxifen resistance. Tamoxifen resistance happens when melatonin levels are too low, and that can be triggered by tiny amounts of nighttime light. Make sure women taking Tamoxifen are also taking melatonin at bedtime and sleeping in TOTAL dark.

It’s completely crazy that this might make such a huge difference, but the research is clear. Exposure to even small amounts of light at night can shut off melatonin production and if there isn’t enough melatonin then the breast cancer is rendered completely resistant to Tamoxifen. Researcher David Blask explains the mechanism this way:

“High melatonin levels at night put breast cancer cells to ‘sleep’ by turning off key growth mechanisms. These cells are vulnerable to tamoxifen. But when the lights are on and melatonin is suppressed, breast cancer cells ‘wake up’ and ignore tamoxifen,”

This has huge implications for women who work night shifts, women who sleep with a TV or computer on in their room or even women who have LED lights or even alarm clocks with lit faces. Also for women who have poorly regulated sleep to begin with or who may not produce adequate melatonin. To me, the simple solution is to include melatonin into the protocol for every woman undergoing breast cancer treatment. Especially since melatonin has it’s own anti-cancer benefits. The standard starting dose for melatonin is 3 mg at bedtime, but in cancer research doses of 20 mg have been shown to have potent anti-cancer benefits, especially for solid tumors like those in breast cancer. If you currently have cancer please talk with your doctor about this and make sure your doctor is aware of the research because this is a new development. Make sure all your lady friends know too because we want to save the ta-tas.

Professional Grade Supplements Direct to Your Doorstep

Your Favorite Posts

* Disclaimer

Amy Neuzil is a Health Coach and Naturopath and not a Medical Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy. All information on dramyneuzil.com is written from a naturopathic perspective. While Amy and dramyneuzil.com strive to have the most accurate information possible, we do not provide medical or health care advice. Please consult your physician before starting any new supplements or treatments and for any medical questions you may have.